I'm not very keen on this from an SRU perspective. RFC or not, it's really a feature addition (the support for longer hostnames for BalancerMember) and the patch implements it as such (across nine source files). This makes the patch difficult to review comprehensively.
Do we really need this in an SRU? Can affected users use shorter hostnames instead? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750356 Title: Apache2: BalancerMember worker hostname (65.character.host.name) too long To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/apache2/+bug/1750356/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
